A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the birth control mandate in ObamaCare, concluding the requirement trammels religious freedom.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals  the second most influential bench in the land behind the Supreme Court  ruled 2-1 in favor of business owners who are fighting the requirement that they provide their employees with health insurance that covers birth control.

Requiring companies to cover their employees contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds, even if they are not purchasing the contraception directly.

The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a companys owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan, Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.

Legal analysts expect the Supreme Court to ultimately pick up an appeal on the birth-control requirement and make a final decision on its constitutionality.

In the meantime, Republicans in Congress have pushed for a conscience clause that would allow employers to opt out of providing contraception coverage for moral or religious reasons.

The measure emerged most recently during negotiations to fund the federal government. Some House Republicans wanted to include the conscience clause in a legislative package ending the government shutdown.

The split ruling against the government on Friday was the latest in a string of court cases challenging the healthcare laws mandate.

Fridays ruling centered on two Catholic brothers, Francis and Philip Gilardi, who own a 400-person produce company based in Ohio.

The brothers oppose contraception as part of their religion and challenged the Affordable Care Act provision requiring them to provide insurance that covers their employees' birth control.

Refusing to abide by the letter of the law, they said, would result in a $14 million fine.

They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong, Brown wrote.

The Obama administration said that the requirement is necessary to protect womens right to decide whether and when to have children.

The judges were unconvinced, however, that forcing companies to cover contraception protected that right.

Brown wrote that it is clear the government has failed to demonstrate how such a right  whether described as noninterference, privacy, or autonomy  can extend to the compelled subsidization of a womans procreative practices.

She added that denying coverage of contraception would not undermine the Affordable Care Acts requirements that health insurance provide preventative care.

The Gilardis employees will still be covered for a series of counseling, screenings and tests, she noted.

The provision of these services  even without the contraceptive mandate  by and large fulfills the statutory command for insurers to provide gender-specific preventive care, she wrote. At the very least, the statutory scheme will not go to pieces.

The two other judges on the panel disagreed with parts of the ruling and said the rights of religious people do not extend to the companies they own. They also disputed that the Gilardis were unduly burdened by the coverage requirement.

Churches and other houses of worship are exempt from the ObamaCare mandate to cover contraception. People who work for religiously affiliated institutions can get birth control directly from their insurance companies.

And so, if abortion is “a constitutional right” because of some assumed “right of privacy” found by 5 judges, why is Obamacare REQUIRED to demand we load ALL of a person’s medical, financial, tax and gun ownership information into a single government database just to satisfy the government’s desire to control all health care information?

12
posted on 11/01/2013 10:31:58 AM PDT
by Robert A. Cook, PE
(I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)

Hang this argument and pending case around the necks of Dem pols running for office. I especially want to see that beech in Texas, Wendy Davis be forced to answer if she supports jamming this caropla down the throats of small businesses. Also nail it to that creep McAuliffe in Va.

ANY court ruling ANY aspect of Obama’s fascist law unconstitutional exposes the pirate Roberts and his illicit ruling to pass this abomination onto the American public. Any doubt about for whom Roberts works should now be settled. Little barry bastard boy’s regime own Roberts.

The two other judges on the panel disagreed with parts of the ruling and said the rights of religious people do not extend to the companies they own.

Other judges? This line appears to contradict the rest of the article.
******************************************************************
It does. The article is unclear and poorly written—as happens frequently in modern “journalism”.

After the unanimous ruling by the court regarding who religous schools can hire, I have little doubt that the majority of the court (even the libs) will support this decision. You cannot remove a person’s consitutional rights from them by virtue of the fact that they own and run a private business.

I don't believe she was involved in those rulings. Janice Rogers Brown is, however, the scumbag Democrats' worst nightmare. She is a black woman, and she is brilliant. And she is a conservative who takes the Constitution seriously. (Like I said, the scumbag rats' worst nightmare.)

The rats did everything in their power to stop her confirmation but she ended up getting confirmed following the "Gang of 14" negotiations back in 2006.

Is birth control and abortion part of the law or part of a hhs rule permitted by the law? if the latter, then perhaps the rule can be ruled unconstitutional while not tripping the law and the severability clause... IANAL...

49
posted on 11/01/2013 10:52:19 AM PDT
by SteveH
(First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.